State of Chhattisgarh Vs Ku. Nandini Dhruv

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:6962-DB

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WA No. 92 of 2025

¶6

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G) (Respondent No. 1)

¶7

2 - The Director, Health Services Chhattisgarh, 3^rd Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G) (Respondent No. 2)

¶8

3 - The Chief Medical and Health Officer, Gariyaband, District - Gariyaband (C.G) (Respondent No. 3)

¶9

... Appellants

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - Ku. Nandini Dhruv D/o Shri Jagannath Dhruv, Aged About 26 Years, Occupation - Service, Posted as Rural Health Organizer (Female) At Sub Health Center Burjabahar, Community Health Center Mainpur, Block - Mainpur, District - Gariyaband (C.G) (Petitioner)

¶12

... Respondent

¶13

For State/Appellants : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 07-02-2025

¶17

Heard on I.A. No.1/2025, application for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal.

¶18

Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN

¶19

2

¶20

On due consideration, I.A. No.1/2025 is allowed and the delay in filing the present appeal is condoned.

¶21

The present writ appeal is preferred assailing the order dated 28-

¶22

11-2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 2167/2019 (Ku. Nandani Dhruv Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) whereby, the writ petition filed by the respondent herein was disposed of by the learned Single Judge with following terms:-

¶23

“In the present case, respondent No. 1 as well as CMHO, District Gariyaband without following the due procedure of law passed the order of termination, such orders are not sustainable in the eyes of the law. Consequently, the impugned order (Annexure P/1) passed in all the petitions is set aside. The corollary of quashment of the impugned order (Annexure P/1) would be that since the petitioners are in service from their respective date of appointment, they would be entitled to the benefits attached to their respective posts. Respondent authorities would be at liberty to take action against the petitioners strictly in accordance with the law if so advised. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of.”

¶24

Against which, the Review Petition No. 250/2024 (State of Chhattisgarh and others Vs. Ku. Nandini Dhruv), filed by the appellants herein seeking review of the order dated 28-11-2023,

¶25

3

¶26

passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 2167/2019, was also rejected vide order dated 20-11-2024 and the same has also been challenged in the present writ appeal.

¶27

It has been pointed out by learned counsel, appearing for the appellants as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondent that in an identical matter, this Bench had dismissed WA No. 47/2025 (State of Chhattisgarh and others Vs. Dunesh Kumari Kanwar) vide order dated 24-01-2025, observing as follows :

¶28

“ 8. True it is sanctioned posts were 14 in Gariyaband whereas total 41 candidates was given appointment in the post of ANM, it is not the question here with respect to the faulty appointment but the question involved in the present case is their termination. Once a employee has been appointed on the government post after following the required process and pursuant to that the appointment orders were issued by the authority, they joined the services and drawing salaries as a regular employees, their GPF accounts were opened by the department and thus, the petitioner has attains the status of regular employee and the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 is applicable to the Government Servant appointed by the State Government. It is a well settled principle of law that if a candidate has been appointed according to the existing Rules, he/ she cannot be removed from his/her posts without following the due process of law. In the CCA Rules, 1966, the procedure has been prescribed for removal of government servant under Rule 14 and 16 of the said CCA Rules, 1966. From perusal of the document annexure P/1 which is the order

¶29

4

¶30

dated 29/08/2018 passed by respondent No. 1 filed in the writ petition, it is quite clear that except for the issuance of show cause notice, the procedure prescribed under Rule 14 and 16 of the CCA Rules, 1966 have not been followed. The learned Single Judge considering the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India as well as the judgment passed by the coordinate bench of this Court in writ appeal No. 448 of 2017, Krishna Kumar Dahariya Vs. State of C.G. & Ors. and also considering the documents annexed with the writ petition, held that the termination of the petitioner is bad in law as the same has been passed in violation of the provisions contending Rule 14 and 16 of CCA Rules, 1966. By holding the same, the termination order of the petitioner has been set aside and it is obvious for once the termination order of an employee is set aside, he/ she would be deem to be in service from the date of their appointment and they are entitled for consequential benefits which has rightly been done by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has also reserved the right of respondent/ State to take action against the petitioner in accordance with law, if so advised. The Review Petition filed by the writ appellant/ State has also been dismissed vide order dated 20.11.2024. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, allowing the writ petition filed by the petitioner and dismissing the Review Petition filed by the State.

¶31

9. Upon perusing the impugned order, we notice that the same has been rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed.

¶32

5

¶33

Learned Single Judge while setting aside the impugned order dated 29.12.2018 and disposing of the writ petition by the impugned order has adverted to all the facts of the case.

¶34

10. From the foregoing reasons, we do not find any sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge and the present writ appeal liable to be and is hereby dismissed .”

¶35

They further submit that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WA No.47/2025 , this appeal may also be dismissed in the same terms.

¶36

Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal is identical to WA No.47/2025, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in WA No. 47/2025.

¶37

Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 24-01-2025 passed in WA No. 47/2025.

¶38

Sd/Sd/-

¶39

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)

¶40

Judge Chief Justice

¶41

Aadil

State of Chhattisgarh v. Ku. Nandini Dhruv

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Chhattisgarh v. Ku. Nandini Dhruv

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yamuna Yadav and Others Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Anoter

Deep Chakraborti Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Sunita Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Virendra Kumar Ware Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Union of India Vs Pradeep Kumar

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Krishnakumar Yadav